There is nothing in the Bible that states that species can't change kinds.
In the OT: Clay was turned into mankind. Moses's staff was wood (piece of a tree) that was transmutated by God into a snake.
In the NT: humans become a new creature in Christ. Rocks can be raised as sons of Abraham.
Transmutation is a Biblically supported concept. "Kinds" can be changed. Why would we assume God couldn't do that?
Evolution is not considered to take place at a constant rate of change (e.g. the Cambrian explosion).
I'm interested in your concept here though. Biblically, what catastrophic change do you consider to be incompatible?
Yes, you could have a model of evolution that could be ruled out, but the topic we should be exploring in detail is the principle of evolution itself, not a particular model of it.
We should challenge our assumptions about things, and a common set of assumptions I'm used to seeing surrounds the creation account and Noah's flood. It's the same type of assumption that erroneously leads people to say that Adam and Eve specifically ate an apple (thereby enforcing a belief that the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was an apple tree)
Salvation is the more important topic.
Creation via evolution vs spontaneous creation is an argument about the methods God used to create everything, and to some extent it is a conversation about OT exegesis and translation.
Is it "Adam" or "mankind"? Are they literal days or figurative days? What process is actually being described by dust from the ground being made into the form of man? Etc.
The reality is that the so-called ‘science’ underpinning ‘Deep Time’ i.e. billions of years is highly flawed and is based on 3 false assumptions in radiometric dating methods.
The House of Darwin needs must have ‘Deep Time’ as a leg on which to stand because No Deep Time and the House of Darwin crashes to the ground and with it all its associated concepts such as microbes to microbiologists
creation.com/radiometric-dating-age-of-earth
In Brief
For Laymen — A summary of the technical article ‘
Radiometric dating and the age of the Earth’ (pages 41–44 this issue)*
4.5 Billion Years
Before 1955, it was popular to believe the age of the earth was only 3 billion years. During 1955 an evolutionary scientist by the name of Patterson2 claimed the age of the earth to be the same as that of meteorites. These he dated at 4.5 billion years. He believed that the meteorites were left-over remains of material dating from the time of formation of the earth and other planets. The value of 4.5 billion years for the age of the earth is now the popular belief used by most evolutionary scientists. This is accepted in spite of the 1972 research by a scientist named Gale21, showing that Patterson’s beliefs about where the lead in meteorites came from, was provably wrong. Gale showed that there was simply too much lead in meteorites to claim that it formed from uranium. Much of the lead had originally been in the meteorite. Therefore, despite the claims in school books, university lectures, and in the media, meteorites and the earth are not ‘proven’ to be 4.5 billion years old.
Edited Data
Such widespread beliefs as the 4.5 billion years of age, and the infallibility of the radiometric dating methods, are unfortunately kept in the public view by two rules agreed upon by many scientists, i.e. if a date disagrees with 4.5 billion years it must be wrong-and if dates do not fit the expected view of evolutionary history, they are simply edited out of any data published.
References to these practices are given in the Technical Article under the headings, Concordant Data and Selective Publication.21–34
1
1
